3162 Insects. 



insects themselves, years before I had become aware of its existence ; from that exami- 

 nation, disposing them into genera, to many of which I applied names, and subse- 

 quently, where needful, substituting Hubner's for my own : — in fact I have an old 

 MSS. Catalogue in my library, written by myself in 1812, in which some of the genera 

 are indicated ; and consequently anterior to the publication of the "out-of-date" work 

 of 1816. If a work is to be shelved and reviled merely because occasionally allied spe- 

 cies are separated and discordant ones united, I would call attention to two genera 

 only, out of many, as they stand in my friend Mr. Doubleday's Catalogue, viz., Nona- 

 gria and Chersotis ; and ask by what possible characters (excepting colour) their con- 

 tents can be held together ? In the former, we have one species (Ulvae) placed by 

 Haworth in Tortrix, another (flammea) figured by Curtis as a Tinea, a third (rufa) se- 

 parated by Haworth from the Noctuae, and Phragmitidis and Typhae " as wide as the 

 poles asunder" !! All, however, are more or less ochreous or pale, and the Chersotes 

 are resplendent with purplish or rosy hues — the sole character they possess in common. 

 (N. typica and N. Maura form the genus Mania !! in Guenee's List, an apt name for 

 such madness. Again, all the German writers to the year 1840 — Eversmann in 1844 

 — agree in placing Rhyparia melanaria in the same genus with Abraxas Grossulariata. 

 All this is very bad : these writers are, however, considered authorities notwithstand- 

 ing). As M. Guenee places my ' Illustrations' in the same category as the " detestable" 

 * Verzeichniss,' taking for example my genus Margaritia in confirmation of his views ; 

 I denounce it, as before alluded to, as an " unfair " proceeding. I state in p. 47, vol. 

 iv. of my ' Haustellata,' " This genus as here regarded is evidently a very artificial one, 

 and doubtless requires considerable curtailment, as well as a remodelling of its con- 

 tents." I then proceed to subdivide the thirty-two species there included, placing the 

 five species he refers to in as many separate, primary, characterized sections ; viz., cli- 

 versalis in § A., cinctalis in § D.b., ferrugalis in § F. b., punctalis in § H., and pruna- 

 lis in § N. (The Museum Catalogue shows that I have now placed them in different 

 genera). The remaining portion of the first extract from Guenee is one of opinion as 

 to the extent of genera, and a point, moreover, that he will not very easily settle. As 

 regards the barbarous names referred to, it is very unfortunate that Hiibner has chosen 

 them, but mere barbarism is no just ground for rejecting them : — a Scandinavian may 

 consider them euphonious: at all events, / have not adopted the generic name Bomo- 

 locha, as erroneously alluded to ; and that for the reason I have not adopted " the 

 whole of the names in the 'Verzeichniss'"; i. e., because I do not admit that and ma- 

 ny other of his groups stated by me (Haust. iv. 4) " to be very artificial.'' Again, had 

 Guenee taken the trouble to read the official Introduction to the Catalogue, he would 

 have found that one object was " to ascertain (not adopt) every name which has been 

 applied to the respective species and their varieties." How then could I have ignored 

 Hubner's work without incurring the censure of neglect, and of wilfully misleading my 

 readers, — more especially as I had noticed the book, and in part acted upon its con- 

 tents, so far back as 1834 ? I fear the expression, " defunct as soon as it came to 

 light," is another instance of Guenee's limited knowledge of entomological literature, 

 and, coupled with previous remarks, of his anachronisms. In the Introduction (in the 

 Annales) to his new classification of the Microlepidoptera, he talks of my Catalogue 

 (of 1829) not remedying the defects of Treitschke's arrangement (of 1830-33), or of 

 Duponchel's (of 1834-38), and coolly tells his readers (Ann. Soc. Ent. de France, 2nd 

 ser. iii. 1 15, pub. 184.0), that I had not characterized any of these insects!!! My fourth 

 volume, published only ten years previously, is a sufficient reply. It may be observed, 



